Other How different does the 120 Hz refresh rate iPhone look to you?

[russell_314]

I didn’t realize that iPhone did not get a 120 Hz screen till the 13 Pro came out. It is not on any of the non-Pro models.

Unless you have a 13 to 16 Pro, you have a 60 Hz display.

I’m asking how people perceive it with their vision rather than spec details. How does it look to you?

 

[Andeddu]

You quickly adapt to whatever refresh rate you look at. I have a laptop with a 144hz screen however I adapt very quickly when on other devices with a 60hz screen. I don’t really care about refresh rate. A 120hz screen is a nice bonus but it isn’t very important to me.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Makes essentially zero difference to me. I upgraded 12 Pro to 15 Pro when the 15 Pro came out... then a couple of months later my wife wanted a better phone so I just swapped with her, & went back to the 12 Pro. The biggest actual difference to me was going back to a 2x telephoto instead of 3x.

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

Anyone who votes that they can't tell the difference should probably have their eyes examined. Thoroughly. The difference is absolutely massive.

Now, there are plenty of people who don't care about the difference. That's fine. That's different. That's not the same thing as being unable to see it. Visually, the difference is massive and that shouldn't require a poll or a debate. It isn't debatable.

 

[Devyn89]

I notice it and it’s the main reason I buy Apple’s pro devices (iPad and iPhone anyways).

 

[WarmWinterHat]

You left out an option: I can easily and readily see it, but just don't care.

My work phone is 60hz (se 2022), and my personal is 120hz. Shrug.

 

[russell_314]

Anyone who votes that they can't tell the difference should probably have their eyes examined. Thoroughly. The difference is absolutely massive.

Now, there are plenty of people who don't care about the difference. That's fine. That's different. That's not the same thing as being unable to see it. Visually, the difference is massive and that shouldn't require a poll or a debate. It isn't debatable.

I think you pointed out the question I was asking. How does it look to you? Currently, the majority of the people don’t think the difference is massive. It’s also possible that the majority of people don’t have perfect eyesight.


The poll wasn’t asking if it was better because clearly on the specs 120 is a bigger number than 60. It has to be better if it’s a bigger number. The poll is asking how do you see it?

I think this is one of those situations where two people are looking at the same thing but see something different. I’m sure there is some placebo effect, but I can’t believe it would be that prominent where people are convinced that there’s a massive difference.

 

[russell_314]

You left out an option: I can easily and readily see it, but just don't care.

Perhaps that could be an option, but you can still choose one of the current options even if you don’t care about it.

Why don’t you care? Legitimate question. Is it because the difference isn’t that much? If it looked significantly better, wouldn’t you have to care? Maybe you don’t use your device very much so it’s not important?

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

I think you pointed out the question I was asking. How does it look to you? Currently, the majority of the people don’t think the difference is massive. It’s also possible that the majority of people don’t have perfect eyesight.


The poll wasn’t asking if it was better because clearly on the specs 120 is a bigger number than 60. It has to be better if it’s a bigger number. The poll is asking how do you see it?

I think this is one of those situations where two people are looking at the same thing but see something different. I’m sure there is some placebo effect, but I can’t believe it would be that prominent where people are convinced that there’s a massive difference.

No. Just, no. The difference is massive. Factually, objectively. It isn't subjective. Whether or not some people can see the difference or not is a matter of visual acuity and interest. A lot of people don't care to pay more for it, so they act like they can't see it. Some people also have terrible, uncorrected eye sight, and literally can't see it.

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

You left out an option: I can easily and readily see it, but just don't care.

My work phone is 60hz (se 2022), and my personal is 120hz. Shrug.

Many people who don't care also pretend like it isn't a massive difference that anyone with functioning eyes can see.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Many people who don't care also pretend like it isn't a massive difference that anyone with functioning eyes can see.

Perhaps, but I have close to 20/20 (at 45, woo!), and could see the difference with sunglasses on in a dark room, but I'm not going to pay extra for it. Refresh rate has never been important to me.

Perhaps that could be an option, but you can still choose one of the current options even if you don’t care about it.

Why don’t you care? Legitimate question. Is it because the difference isn’t that much? If it looked significantly better, wouldn’t you have to care? Maybe you don’t use your device very much so it’s not important?

I chose slightly better.

I don't care because it doesn't affect how I use the device. If it's higher for the same price, or as a default, that's cool, but it's not worth more money.

..but I also don't use my phone all that much, compared to most. SOT of 1.5 to 2 hours per day.

 

[russell_314]

No. Just, no. The difference is massive. Factually, objectively. It isn't subjective. Whether or not some people can see the difference or not is a matter of visual acuity and interest. A lot of people don't care to pay more for it, so they act like they can't see it. Some people also have terrible, uncorrected eye sight, and literally can't see it.

I still think you’re missing the question from the poll. It’s asking how you see it not if it’s a better spec. I think asking if it was a better spec would be a pointless poll because we already know the answer to that.

I personally can’t see a massive difference. I did notice a difference in how the screen looked when I went from an iPhone 7 Plus to an iPhone XS Max. That was because of OLED not the refresh rate.

I know some people say they don’t care but still see a difference but that’s a different question. That would be a poll of “Do you think it’s worth paying extra for a 120 Hz refresh rate screen”

My question is basically aimed at how important 120 Hz is to the individual person. If it looks like a world of difference, then it becomes very important but if someone can’t tell the difference, then it’s irrelevant. Right now it seems a little under half of the people say it’s either no difference or only slightly better.

I’m still not sure about people who say they can tell the difference but don’t care. It’s like they don’t mind looking at a worse looking screen.

 

[russell_314]

Perhaps, but I have close to 20/20 (at 45, woo!), and could see the difference with sunglasses on in a dark room, but I'm not going to pay extra for it. Refresh rate has never been important to me.



I chose slightly better.

I don't care because it doesn't affect how I use the device. If it's higher for the same price, or as a default, that's cool, but it's not worth more money.

..but I also don't use my phone all that much, compared to most. SOT of 1.5 to 2 hours per day.

That’s interesting. You say it’s very noticeable to the point of seeing it with sunglasses in a dark room but only slightly better. Basically it sounds like you’re saying it looks different but the different isn’t really beneficial to you. Apologies if I got that wrong.


I understand your second point in the sense that it works either way.

 

[Adelphos33]

My corporate iPhone is an iPhone 13; personal is pHone 14PM. So I see the difference constantly.

1) The 14PM has smoother animation and scrolling
2) But the 13 still looks good in terms of images, text, etc.
3) The biggest difference, for me, is always on display.

 

[naught@home]

I chose "I can't really tell the difference", but if I could have chosen 'indifference' or 'don't care" I would have chosen that.

My MacBook Pro, iPhone PM and iPad Pro are all 120Hz, but my Studio Display is still the screen I like using most…

​

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

I still think you’re missing the question from the poll. It’s asking how you see it not if it’s a better spec. I think asking if it was a better spec would be a pointless poll because we already know the answer to that.

I personally can’t see a massive difference. I did notice a difference in how the screen looked when I went from an iPhone 7 Plus to an iPhone XS Max. That was because of OLED not the refresh rate.

I know some people say they don’t care but still see a difference but that’s a different question. That would be a poll of “Do you think it’s worth paying extra for a 120 Hz refresh rate screen”

My question is basically aimed at how important 120 Hz is to the individual person. If it looks like a world of difference, then it becomes very important but if someone can’t tell the difference, then it’s irrelevant. Right now it seems a little under half of the people say it’s either no difference or only slightly better.

I’m still not sure about people who say they can tell the difference but don’t care. It’s like they don’t mind looking at a worse looking screen.

It looks like a world of difference, and if you can't see it's a visual acuity issue.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Anyone who votes that they can't tell the difference should probably have their eyes examined. Thoroughly. The difference is absolutely massive.

Now, there are plenty of people who don't care about the difference. That's fine. That's different. That's not the same thing as being unable to see it. Visually, the difference is massive and that shouldn't require a poll or a debate. It isn't debatable.

No. Just, no. The difference is massive. Factually, objectively. It isn't subjective. Whether or not some people can see the difference or not is a matter of visual acuity and interest. A lot of people don't care to pay more for it, so they act like they can't see it. Some people also have terrible, uncorrected eye sight, and literally can't see it.

It looks like a world of difference, and if you can't see it's a visual acuity issue.

Making very subjective comments while pretending that they are objective, not the move my friend.
If it was really as big of a difference as you are saying it is, you wouldn’t have to make “three posts” talking about how big and massive and world changing and beautiful and luxurious a screen refresh rate is.
Also if it “ wasn’t debatable” as you say, you wouldn’t be here debating it. And yet, here you are.

 

[klasma]

Anyone who votes that they can't tell the difference should probably have their eyes examined. Thoroughly. The difference is absolutely massive.

…to you. Everyone’s eyes are different. I use both a 60 Hz iPhone and a 120 Hz iPad Pro daily, and I hardly notice a difference. On the other hand, the jelly scrolling on the iPad mini 6/7 is awful and jarring to me (compared to a mini 5, so that’s not about the Hz), while many people claim they can’t see it. Our visual system isn’t as objective and uniform as we think it is.

In the dress controversy ten years ago, I thought that everyone who didn’t see it as white and gold was crazy, but here we are.

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

…to you. Everyone’s eyes are different. I use both a 60 Hz iPhone and a 120 Hz iPad Pro daily, and I hardly notice a difference. On the other hand, the jelly scrolling on the iPad mini 6/7 is awful and jarring to me (compared to a mini 5, so that’s not about the Hz), while many people claim they can’t see it. Our visual system isn’t as objective and uniform as we think it is.

In the dress controversy ten years ago, I thought that everyone who didn’t see it as white and gold was crazy, but here we are.

No. There is an objective, observable difference. If you can't see it, it is a visual acuity problem. This is not debatable. People keep trying to frame this debate because they either have poor eyesight or don't way to pay for 120 Hz, but it doesn't change reality.

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

Making very subjective comments while pretending that they are objective, not the move my friend.
If it was really as big of a difference as you are saying it is, you wouldn’t have to make “three posts” talking about how big and massive and world changing and beautiful and luxurious a screen refresh rate is.
Also if it “ wasn’t debatable” as you say, you wouldn’t be here debating it. And yet, here you are.

Sorry, no. There is nothing subjective about this. That's not how reality works.

 

[russell_314]

…to you. Everyone’s eyes are different. I use both a 60 Hz iPhone and a 120 Hz iPad Pro daily, and I hardly notice a difference. On the other hand, the jelly scrolling on the iPad mini 6/7 is awful and jarring to me (compared to a mini 5, so that’s not about the Hz), while many people claim they can’t see it. Our visual system isn’t as objective and uniform as we think it is.

In the dress controversy ten years ago, I thought that everyone who didn’t see it as white and gold was crazy, but here we are.

…to you. Everyone’s eyes are different. I use both a 60 Hz iPhone and a 120 Hz iPad Pro daily, and I hardly notice a difference. On the other hand, the jelly scrolling on the iPad mini 6/7 is awful and jarring to me (compared to a mini 5, so that’s not about the Hz), while many people claim they can’t see it. Our visual system isn’t as objective and uniform as we think it is.

In the dress controversy ten years ago, I thought that everyone who didn’t see it as white and gold was crazy, but here we are.

I find the discussion entertaining. A few years back that was a big contention between android and iPhone. People in the android camp would always mention iPhones were stuck in the past with their slower refresh rate. I didn’t think display refresh rate was that serious anymore but I guess it still is. Maybe it’s iPhone versus iPhone Pro now.

It would be nice if someone here was an eye doctor that could explain why people are seeing the same thing but having different experiences. As I mentioned before, I don’t think it’s a placebo effect with such strong beliefs that it’s that much better. It’s just interesting how about half of the people think it’s much better and a little less than half can’t tell the difference.


I really didn’t expect these poll results. I expected about 90% would say it’s at least “Much better”. I don’t feel so blind now 😂

 

[klasma]

It would be nice if someone here was an eye doctor that could explain why people are seeing the same thing but having different experiences.

It’s more about the brain than about the eyes. The human brain doesn’t even perceive the duration of a second uniformly when watching a clock, depending on how one moves one’s eyes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982202007078

Chronostasis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We also tend to not see what we don’t expect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness

Much of what the brain does is predicting the immediate future, and then comparing it to the sensory input only after significant processing of the latter. When we predict movement (like when scrolling on a smartphone), and what we see more or less matches the prediction, then we take the prediction as truth. Different people will have different tolerances on how much the perceived movement has to differ (like for example a minor stutter) from the prediction to be able to consciously notice the deviation. What we think we see is not the original sensory input, it’s what our brains unconsciously believes to be likely the case after having reconciled the processed input with its predictions.

 

[naught@home]

120Hz is more than 60Hz. Quantifiable fact.

120Hz is better than 60Hz. Merely opinion.

 

[Timpetus]

It's nice, but not a dealbreaker for me. If I have to choose between Retina and 120Hz I'll pick Retina every time. Same with color accuracy/color space coverage/viewing angle/brightness. All of those matter more to me than refresh rate, which is why when given a choice (aka for my own personal devices) I am not rushing out to buy cheap 1080p/1440p gaming monitors with crazy refresh rates but otherwise horrible specs. High refresh rate is nice to have once I have all the other specs covered.

 

[redcarian]

Honestly, I can see the difference, but my ability to care even the tiniest amount is severely constrained.

Resolution, brightness, and colour fidelity is much, much more important to me (and, I suspect, a lot of people).